I was reading the Psychedelics Encyclopedia by Peter Stafford and in his MDA chapter he noted a few things that made my hears poke up. First he said that the aminization of plant oils takes away their negative affects while giving those high positive narcotic affects. Then he said 'thousands of substances have been made this way but only a few have been tested by humans'. Wow. So he is telling me that there are potentially thousands of completely legal yet very powerful psychedelics out there just waiting for me to shove in my mouth to be tested? Sounds like I need to order a few dozen samples of random plant oils and find out what their amines feel like. I mean shit, how many THOUSANDS of plants are there? And if aminization of the oil leads to narcotic affects in many if not most then how many unscheduled legal drugs is that? Without getting too academic and into the whole technical chemistry of each plant oil I think I'm going to run a few oils through synthesises I have used to aminize other oils and see what I get. Fuck chemical structure and trying to prepare the right synthesis for each oil, many of the greatest pharmacuticals were discovered accidentally by just fucking around.

The problem would be in potency and nitrogenous poisons.  Even some of the novel legal amphetamines can be quite toxic!  Learn up on some drug design theory and perhaps check out some of shulgins books on isoquinolines and cacti alkaloids.

Just because its a drug doesn't mean its awesome! lol

I agree Enkidu but the possibility of there being alternative names for the process that I am unaware of means either I have more study to do or Peter Stafford that wrote the book needs to do more study esp when trying to tell the masses how to make drugs......

German Study up on essential oils and then pharmocology and see if you can find a match. If so then a specific amination route can be found in an attempt to make a new mind altering substance.

Remember the basic concept: "all drugs are poisons and all poisons are drugs"

Is Vitamin C a poison? (Definitely not!) Was your "truism" a joke?

Some can be taken in amounts larger than required in a typical diet, with no apparent ill effects. Linus Pauling said of vitamin B3, (either niacin or niacinamide), "What astonished me was the very low toxicity of a substance that has such very great physiological power. A little pinch, 5 mg, every day, is enough to keep a person from dying of pellagra, but it is so lacking in toxicity that ten thousand times as much can [sometimes] be taken without harm."[2]

Or how bout eating too much NaCl? Heart problems, anyone? Yet, an intake of Na+ and Cl- is required for life!

I see that a substance can be used as a drug and act as a poison. All I see is molecular orbitals; and beneath those: atoms; and beneath those, sub atomic particles. I simply see existence   Is water in a puddle poison? At that moment, I couldn't see the image. I could only observe the soul. The functions are just the costumes. They cloak the real in an image.

That Buddhist shit is getting into my head. I forgot the we had divided, separated, and categorized the world. A shred of the infinite. Everything that we perceive is simply an image made up of thousands and thousand of bits of information. So when you say, "that's a poison,' the word poison is just an indicator, just like a finger, pointing at the real thing. The soul. Then when you say that real thing is something else, e.g., a drug, I posit that the real thing can be a drug, but it doesn't have to be. The real thing is that water molecule, and the way it is used is completely separate.

I bet that makes ZERO sense. (Remember that, when you work a word problem, the word "are" means equal. Three is half of what? 3 = (1/2)x )

poisons are drugs
poisons = drugs, let's say that water is a poison (water = poison)
water = drugs

but what about the water in the puddle?

or am I just fucking crazy..

So I would've said: All substances acting as poisons are also being used as drugs, and all substances being used as drugs are also acting as poisons.

Vitamine C is lipid soluble and builds in fat cells meaning that to large a daily dose can cause major issues.

Ascorbic acid is a vinylic carboxylic acid and rather soluble in water    Most animal species synthesize ascorbic acid but humans lost that ability during evolution long ago    Goats produce about thirteen grams of ascorbic acid per day    As far as what Stafford wrote, one would learn a lot more from studying the works of someone such as Shulgin who has probably published the most scientific research in this field    Toxicity is always a potential issue that cannot be ignored  

  As far as what Stafford wrote, one would learn a lot more from studying the works of someone such as Shulgin who has probably published the most scientific research in this field

There were criticisms of Staffords book made in J. Ott's Pharmacotheon also, with the former making confusing statements about harmine and harmaline. Attention to detail like that is necessary because of the principles underlying Paracelceus' remark "All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous." Ambiguity serves no purpose in chemical identification.

he is telling me that there are potentially thousands of completely legal yet very powerful psychedelics out there just waiting for me to shove in my mouth to be tested?

The legality of these substances in the united states is currently questionable IMHO considering the analogue act. Something similar - though differing slightly as it is civil law not criminal law- was introduced into Ireland which is the usual proving ground for controversial UK legislation like the smoking ban. You cannot count on something to be legal just because it is not expressly forbidden any longer. When Shuglin wrote his constrolled substance book it almost seemed possible to list or at least refer to all prohibited substances. That does not appear to bee the case any longer. Check the date of print of the book and any thing else that tells you something is legal in print- a risky business.

There are hundreds of drugs that have been synthesized, many starting from oils or natural products, that have some history and characterization performed. I would be very hesitant to start aminating random unidentified chemicals and ingesting the product. In fact I wouldnt ingest them prior to amination if I was unaware of the effects. 

Oh and the analogue act makes everything illegal only when you call as such. For example, if I take a kilo of sugar and sell it as a kilo of cocaine legally it is the exact same thing as selling a kilo of cocaine. Or if I take flour and say "this will give you the same affects as cocaine" then I am now subjecting myself to cocaine laws. However, if I come up with a brand new compound that is exactly like LSD, yet it is not a chemical analogue of LSD or any other scheduled drug NOR do I try to pass it off as LSD (this is the biggie) then I am in the clear. This is why Shulgin is calling all his new discoveries from now on as anti-depresants because if he calls them that instead of calling them psychedelics comparable to "pick your drug" then he technically gets by the analogue act. So if the compound is not a chemical analogue and you do not claim that it acts like or currently replaces a scheduled drug then you are technically in the clear. At least that is what I have read about the law.

 Google books for the term:  Pharmacognosy, phytopharmaceuticals, Medicinal plants. botanical medicine, and medicinal chemistry.

I have the 2nd edition of this book and it is pretty good:
http://books.google.com/books?id=PlMi4XvHCYoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=pharmacognosy+Kar&hl=en&ei=ep_kTPzuDYH88AaixbSlDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I have a book called Phytochemical Techniques that sucks, sounded good but is all about setting up hplc runs.  Ethnobotany book was also boring.

salat

 Today I went to the Big Library in town, I had some time to kill and went to jump on a computer for a bit, then, while waiting for a computer in this fuckin HUGE library, in this weird serendipitous moment, something makes me walk over to one of the aisles, and I was in the middle of the chemistry section, and this MASSIVE book caught my attention....

   It is...."Fenarolis Handbook of Flavor Ingredients"    by   'George. A. Burdock'......ISBN  978-1-4200-9077-2   Printed 2010

   Its a couple of thousand pages of fantastic information of an extraordinary amount of compounds, especially all any any 'natural oils' and their constituents; the entries are quite involved, and include some very interesting observations on many common oils and their constituents; e.g. patchouli oil
                                   
         noted in 'other' herbal tomes cites,

        "patchouli-It may be mentioned that in the West, patchouli is presently widely used in aromatherapy to treat skin disorders. The essential oil obtained from patchouli is said to possess renewing properties for the skin tone and facilitates healing skin conditions, such as acne, eczema, scar tissue as well as split skin. In addition, the herb is also very useful in treating nervousness, depression and all conditions associated with stress"
                       amongst talking up some weird oily concoctions, UNLIKE this motherfucker of a repository of truly nifty shit,,,like,,,
             
                  Did anyone know that the aforementioned oil is RICH in "benzaldehyde,eugenol,cinnamaldehyde"....Hmmmmm?

             My 'understanding' of organic chemistry, is very basic, however  e.g. "Although I can see how its possible, to 'build' molecules, I am a LONG way from "understanding, exactly what has/is/will happening";how and why these 'bonds are made and broken/cleaved", and "knowing how to DO it",,,
       
       yet I hope with help from the members of this forum, together with my own endeavours I will eventually absolve this ignorance.... 
        so, compared to the knowledge level/s of many of the members of this forum,
                                           
             I am happy to accept a,  "beginner/learner/possible asker of totally dumb questions/always grateful for the help given/knowledge shared/who IS motivated, but needs guidance, and is happy to try and help my fellow "buzzies",  type of 'tag' coz thats currently what I am

    I.e. did we know that "Diacetyl (IUPAC systematic name: butanedione or 2,3-butanedione" (used as a flavor! 'buttery' apparently) can be cleaved using zinc and and acid to yeild our old mate, Ac2O (which is the chemical that brought me "here" via SM IIRC
 or am I being misled, my basic searches yielded zilch

  Anyway buzzies, I hope you find this awesome book as interesting I did in 30secs--Oh I wish I could have taken it home (it was in the 'reference only', no borrowing, section ) Oh well I'll just have to go back with a BIG flash drive and a bit of time, maybe?
   
   Hyppy